Political Implications of
U.S. Public Attitudes Toward
Immigration on the Immigration
Policymaking Process
Valerie F. Hunt
P
olicymakers and researchers alike are concerned about the political challenges that liberal states face when attempting to regulate immigration
through policy reform amid increased migration and trade (Freeman
1994; Hollifield 1992). At times, U.S. immigration (and immigration policy) corresponds with the ebb and flow of economic conditions—namely that during
times of economic prosperity, policy is more expansive, and during times of
economic downturns, it tends to be more restrictive. However, there are times
when the U.S. government passes expansive immigration measures in the face
of economic downturns. Irrespective of real-world conditions that can be traced
to increased globalization and trade and to increased levels of both illegal and
legal immigration, governmental drives toward expansive or restrictive immigration policy are mediated by the public’s acceptance of immigration and immigration policy.
I argue that liberal governments must take the public will into consideration
when making policy. When does public opinion matter to the policy process?
Anthony Downs (1972) tells us that not every issue that gains public attention
gets addressed on the policy agenda. Indeed, the public, when confronted with
the economic and/or social costs, may lose interest and cease pressuring the government to make policy reforms. For example, one policy option for curbing the
hiring of illegal labor is to require both citizens and immigrants to carry a national
identification card. Gallup polls show that, until recently, the American public has
121
122
Valerie F. Hunt
considered a national identity card too great a cost to pay for resolving the problem of identifying undocumented migrants (cited in Hunt 2003).
Immigration reform has long been a source of internal divisions in both the
Republican and Democratic parties (Tichenor 2002). Because of the potential for
policy stalemate, parties have an incentive to keep immigration off the policy
agenda as much as possible. For example, negotiations around the North American Free Trade Agreement did not include provisions for regulating immigration
from Mexico or Canada. The trade agreements were devoted to policy development for the transfer of goods and services.
Lawmakers were able to keep immigration issues off the government’s policy
agenda for two key reasons. First, opinion polls indicated that the American
public considered immigration to be much less important than other issues, such
as the state of the economy, crime levels, and, after the 9/11 attacks, the war in
Iraq and terrorism. Second, the American public had seldom punished elected
officials for immigration policy stances that may have been counter to public
preferences.
Heightened public attention to immigration has exacerbated the polarization
within and between parties over immigration reform. In addition, factors such as
rising levels of illegal immigration since the mid-1990s, the effects of globalization on domestic labor markets, public uncertainty about individual and national
economic well-being, and public concerns about national security due to the
porous U.S. border have pushed out in the open the parties’ internal divisions
about the most appropriate policy alternative for addressing unauthorized and
legal immigration.
Public Attitudes Toward Immigration Issues: Before and After 9/11
For decades, Americans have displayed ambivalence toward immigrants and
immigration policy (Fetzer 2000; Simon 1985; Simon and Alexander 1993; Simon
and Lynch 1999). At certain times, Americans profess appreciation for the presence of immigrants and even embrace the notion of immigrants’ importance to
the nation’s development. For example, American national identity is often associated with the concept of being a nation of immigrants (Reimers 1992). Yet,
Americans express animosity toward each new wave of migrants into the nation’s
social, political, and economic fabric.
As public opinion scholars Simon and Lynch (1999) demonstrate, the American public expresses positive feelings about immigrants who came to America
in the distant past and negative feelings toward immigrants who came during
whatever period the survey was conducted. Since the late nineteenth century,
Americans have regarded each new wave of migrants as a threat to economic
Political Implications of U.S. Public Attitudes Toward Immigration 123
well-being and as a challenge to cherished touchstones of American identity. In a
recent study, anthropologist Leo Chavez (2001) investigated the interplay of public
discourse and media coverage of immigration on ten American national magazine
covers from 1965 to 1999 and how the coverage coincided with real-world conditions such as economic upswings and downturns. Patterns of positive and negative depictions coincided with shifts in the economy. Positive depictions appeared
during economic upswings, while negative images and stories of immigrants ran
during economic downturns. Chavez finds that national magazines published
positive depictions of immigrants on their covers during the Independence Day
period, a time when Americans are open to embracing their immigrant heritage.
Three developments in U.S. public attitudes have emerged since the 2001
terrorist attacks. First, Americans have shifted their thinking about the salience or
importance of immigration issues. Second, they have changed their level of attentiveness to immigration as a national problem. Third, as awareness of immigration
issues and divisiveness in political parties have increased, they have begun to use
immigration as an evaluative criterion for vote choice.
This study analyzes the causes and implications of these shifts in public attitudes toward immigration on the U.S. political landscape. Specifically, I address
how changes in public attitudes have political implications for the 2006 midterm
elections and on current policy reform efforts. Real-world conditions shape U.S.
immigration policy and the country’s ability to control unwanted migration. The
impact of these real-world conditions cannot be understood without taking into
consideration the role of U.S. public attitudes in the policy process. I argue that
the impact of these real-world conditions on immigration is mediated by public
perceptions of these factors.
Ebb and Flow of Public Attentiveness to Immigration Issues:
Before and After 9/11
Before 9/11, the American public paid less attention to immigration than to
other issues. When asked what they think is the most important problem facing
the nation, Americans consistently rank immigration at the very bottom of public
priorities, with crime, the economy, and the war in Iraq consistently polling as
most important.
For example, political controversy over 1994 California Proposition 187 focused national public attention on illegal immigration issues. The California initiative sparked public debate over whether immigrants constituted a fiscal burden by
overcrowding schools and hospitals, depressing wages, and using scarce socialservice resources without paying into the public coffers. The public increased its
attentiveness to immigration, particularly amnesty provisions for illegal migrants
in the U.S., as well as guest-worker programs and the problem of unauthorized
migration from Mexico.
124
Valerie F. Hunt
Immigration moved from regional to national policy agendas. Congress addressed illegal immigration after the 1994 midterm elections, during which the
Republican Party regained the majority of the House and Senate. It passed the
1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act and the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act.
After this flurry of legislative activity, public attentiveness to immigration
waned for the rest of the 1990s. But after 9/11, Americans began to pay more
attention to immigration. Several surveys conducted by the Pew Research Center
for the People and the Press from 2005 to 2006 show that immigration moved to
the top tier of most important problems facing the nation. Table 1 compares the
results of five Pew surveys conducted between November 2005 and September
2006. The September survey shows that immigration ranks as one of the top six
most important problems. The issues Americans considered most important were
the war in Iraq (25 percent), terrorism (14 percent), the economy (9 percent),
energy prices (7 percent), immigration and government (6 percent each).
Public Understanding of Immigration Issues: Before and After 9/11
The public exhibits fairly consistent and articulated opinions about immigrants and immigration policy. Prior to 9/11, Americans generally understood
immigration issues primarily as economic, fiscal, or social problems. Problems
tended to focus on job displacement issues (for example, whether immigrants
take jobs away from native-born workers or take jobs that native-born workers do
not want) and the impact of immigrants on social resources (whether immigrants
act as a drain on social services or represent a net gain by way of paying federal
taxes).
Two significant changes in public understanding about immigration and immigrant issues emerged after the 9/11 attacks. The first involves a shift in public
perceptions of national security. Before 9/11, U.S. national security was often
Table 1
Most Important Problem (Percent)
Q: “What do you think is the most important problem facing the nation?”
War in Iraq
Terrorism
Economy
Energy prices
Immigration
Government/politics
Nov. 2005
29
6
11
4
2
7
Jan. 2006
March 2006
May 2006
Sept. 2006
23
6
11
5
3
5
20
8
7
5
4
10
18
5
7
14
10
13
25
14
9
7
6
6
SOURCE: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (2006b).
Political Implications of U.S. Public Attitudes Toward Immigration 125
framed as an international or foreign-policy issue. After 9/11, Americans began to
view security as a domestic issue. The second, related shift involves changes in
the perceived threat that illegal immigration poses to the nation. Before 9/11, the
threat of legal and illegal immigration was contextualized as threats to personal
or national economic well-being or as threats to national identity. After 9/11, the
public began to perceive immigration in general, and unauthorized immigration in particular, as threats to domestic security. Unauthorized migration became
linked with terrorist infiltration of the U.S. through illegal border crossing.
These two shifts in the public’s understanding or framing of immigration issues, coupled with increased public attentiveness relative to other issues, helped
move immigration from the margins to the center of public and national governmental agendas.
Impact of Public Attitudes Toward Immigration on Voters’ Decisionmaking:
Before and After 9/11
A key implication of changes in the context and level of public attentiveness
to immigration is the degree to which immigration now influences U.S. electoral
politics. Until recently, there was little evidence that voters use their attitudes
toward immigration as a factor for making electoral decisions. Several recurrent
issues are high on the national policy agenda: crime, health care, the state of the
economy, and unemployment (Baumgartner and Jones 1993). Presidential races
have usually involved voters’ evaluations of which candidate would be better on
addressing crucial electoral issues such as crime, as in the 1988 Bush–Dukakis
race (Mendelberg 2001); who is more fit to turn the economy around, as in the
1992 Clinton–Bush race; or who is more fit to handle terrorism or the war in Iraq,
as in the 2004 Bush–Kerry race.
Tarrance Group and Lake Research Partners (2006a, 2006b) surveys of registered voters conducted March 26 – 28, 2006, and July 9 – 13, 2006, however, provide preliminary evidence that voters are connecting their evaluations of immigration with their prospective vote choices. The March 2006 survey asked voters:
“What issue is the most important for your member of Congress to deal with?”
The top response was the war in Iraq (15 percent). Next, tied with jobs and the
economy at 11 percent, was immigration. The significance of this finding is that
immigration ranks at the same level of importance as issues that voters traditionally use to make voting decisions.
A large percentage of the respondents viewed immigration as a problem of
serious magnitude. When asked about the severity of the problem, 61 percent
considered illegal immigration to be a very serious (28 percent) or extremely serious (33 percent) problem.
The Tarrance survey results suggest that this perception has a “priming effect”
on voters’ decisionmaking. In other words, when voters pay attention to immigra-
126
Valerie F. Hunt
tion issues, they use their understanding of the issue to evaluate the performance
of elected representatives (Iyengar and Kinder 1987). Table 2 displays the results
of respondents’ answers to the following question:
“What if there were a candidate who stood for most of the things you believe in,
but took a stand on immigration that you really disagreed with? Would you probably/
definitely vote for that candidate, or probably/definitely not vote for that candidate?”
Sixty-four percent of respondents said they would vote for a candidate
who supports policy preferences with which the voter disagrees. One in three
voters, or 30 percent, would not vote for a candidate who disagrees with the
voter’s policy preferences.
The July 2006 Tarrance survey asked respondents about their attitudes toward
the very different congressional legislative reform bills debated in the House and
Senate.1 The House bill (HR 4437), referred to as the enforcement-only bill, provides resources for the deportation of unauthorized (illegal) immigrants with no
option of returning to the U.S. The bill passed the House in December 2005 on
a vote of 239 – 182, with 92 percent of Republicans favoring and 82 percent of
Democrats opposing. The Senate bill (S 2611), referred to as the comprehensive
immigration bill, provides expansive policy options for addressing the problem
of illegal immigration and the presence of illegal immigrants already in the U.S.
These include a guest-worker program and a process for unauthorized migrants
who have been in the U.S. for at least two years to apply for permanent residence
after payment of penalties and taxes (a pathway to citizenship). The Senate bill
passed in May 2006 on a vote of 62 – 36, with 90 percent of Democrats approving
and 59 percent of Republicans opposing.
Responses to several key survey questions about these bills give evidence
for the shift of the immigration issue from the margins to the center of national
politics (Tables 3A and 3B). A majority of respondents, or 62 percent, indicated
that they felt illegal immigration was an important problem that Congress needs
to resolve in 2006 (33 percent called it “extremely important” and 29 percent said
it was “very important”).
Table 2
Voter Attitudes on Immigration Reform (Percent)
“What if there were a candidate who stood for most of the things you believe in, but took a stand on immigration that
you really disagreed with? Would you probably/definitely vote for that candidate, or probably/definitely not vote for that
candidate?”
Probably/definitely vote for:
Probably/definitely not vote for:
64
30
NOTE: Number = 1,010; margin of error ± 3.1 percent.
SOURCE: Tarrance Group and Lake Research Partners (2006a), March 26 – 28, 2006.
Political Implications of U.S. Public Attitudes Toward Immigration 127
Yet, respondents were ambivalent about the policy alternatives on the government’s agenda. They were asked (Q2, Table 3A) if they would oppose or
support legislation that would tighten borders, toughen penalties on employers and
workers who violate immigration laws, create an expanded guest worker program,
and make most current illegal immigrants ineligible for citizenship. Forty-six percent
favored this restrictive measure, while 49 percent opposed it. In comparison, there was
significant divergence in responses to the comprehensive bill (Q1, Table 3A).
Seventy-one percent favored the comprehensive bill, while 23 percent opposed it.
The Tarrance study also polled respondents about the connection of their
policy preferences on immigration with their prospective vote choices/support of
candidates. Respondents were divided on whether they would vote for a candidate who supports the enforcement-driven policy option (Q3, Table 3A). FortyTable 3A
U.S. Voter Attitudes Toward Immigration Policy Reform Options (Percent)
Would you favor or oppose passage of this legislation?
Q1: “…Provide resources to greatly increase border security; impose penalties on employers who hire illegal workers;
allow additional workers to come to the U.S. to work for a temporary period; create a system in which illegal immigrants
could come forward and register, pay a fine and receive a temporary-worker permit; provide these temporary workers
with a multiyear path to earned citizenship if they get to the end of the line and meet certain requirements for living
crime free, learning English, paying taxes?”
Q2: “…Tighten the borders; put tougher penalties on employers and workers who violate immigration laws; create an
expanded guest-worker program that allows people to work here only temporarily; and most current illegal immigrants
would never be eligible for citizenship?”
Follow-up question asked after Q1 (comprehensive) and Q2 (enforcement only):
Q3: “…And, would you be more likely or less likely to vote for a candidate who supports this legislation?”
Favor
Unsure
Oppose
More likely
Unsure
No difference
Less likely
Q1 Comprehensive
(“provide resources”)
Q2 Enforcement only
(“tighten borders”)
71
6
23
46
5
49
Q3 Comprehensive
Enforcement only
66
9
4
22
45
6
2
47
NOTE: Number = 1,000; margin of error ± 3 percent.
SOURCE: Tarrance Group and Lake Research Partners (2006b), July 9 – 13, 2006.
128
Valerie F. Hunt
five percent said they were more likely and 47 percent less likely to support a
candidate who supports this legislation.
When asked about supporting a candidate who delays action or passes enforcement-focused legislation (Q4 and Q5, Table 3B), respondents were also divided. For example, 58 percent said they were less likely to support a candidate
who supports restrictive legislation, compared with 38 percent who were more
likely to do so.
Political Impact of Public Perception of Increased Levels of U.S. Immigration
It is important that we examine the relationship between increased immigration flows and U.S. public attitudes and the impact of that relationship on
the policy process. The annual level of legal admissions had steadily increased
beginning in the 1970s. Following the 9/11 attacks, legal admissions decreased
from 1,059,356 in 2002 to 703,542 in 2003 but increased in subsequent years, from
957,883 legal admissions in 2004 to 1,122,373 in 2005 and to 1,266,264 in 2006.2
According to 2006 U.S. Census reports, the foreign born compose 12.4 percent of
the total U.S. population.3
The effects of increased levels of legal admissions on the potential for policy
reform are mediated by public perceptions of the consequences. When the public
connects increased levels of unauthorized immigration to specific costs borne by
the public or state, it increases the likelihood that citizens will call for restrictive
reforms. However, research provides mixed support for this thesis. Jack Citrin
Table 3B
U.S. Voter Attitudes Toward Immigration Policy Reform Options (Percent)
“Please tell me whether you would be more likely or less likely to support a candidate for Congress who supported that
solution to the current immigration problem.”
Q4: “Passing no legislation this year and taking a fresh look at this issue next year when election year politics will not be
looming over the process.”
Q5: “Passing legislation which only increases border security and enacts tougher penalties on employers but does not
include a guest-worker program and does not include a path to citizenship for current illegal immigrants.”
More likely
Unsure
No difference
Less likely
Q4
Pass no law this year
Q5
Pass enforcement only law
49
5
1
45
38
3
1
58
NOTE: Number = 1,000; margin of error ± 3 percent.
SOURCE: Tarrance Group and Lake Research Partners (2006b), July 9 – 13, 2006.
Political Implications of U.S. Public Attitudes Toward Immigration 129
and colleagues (1997) examine the degree to which Americans’ attitudes toward
immigrants are based on their economic situations and concerns — namely, labor
market competition, overall concern for the U.S. economy, and concerns due to
increases in the percentage of foreign born. The researchers find that respondents
in states with high levels of foreign born are no more likely than respondents in
other parts of the country to support restricting immigration levels.
A 2006 Pew Research Center survey of voters in red (Republican) and blue
(Democratic) counties shows similar responses in attitudes toward illegal immigration (Table 4). Red county residents have far less contact with the foreign
born than residents in blue county areas. When asked if illegals should leave the
country, 44 percent of residents in counties with higher concentrations of foreign
born (blue) agreed, compared with 57 percent of red county residents. Voter
partisanship and concentration of foreign born seem to matter. Sixty percent of
Republican respondents in red counties who reported their personal finances as
excellent agreed with the statement, while 39 percent of their Democratic counterparts believed illegal immigrants should leave the country.
What are the options for policy reform resulting from shifts in public perception about the negative consequences of either legal or unauthorized migration?
The public seems responsive to enforcement policies for regulating illegal immigration and overall favors decreasing or at least maintaining current levels of
legal admissions.
Table 4
Differences in Voter Attitudes in Red and Blue Counties in the U.S. (Percent)
Red counties
Blue counties
Swing counties
“Illegals should leave the U.S.”
57
44
54
Total personal finances
Excellent/good
Only fair/poor
52
62
45
43
51
56
Among Republicans
Excellent/good
Only fair/poor
60
72
51
65
59
71
Among Democrats
Excellent/good
Only fair/poor
39
53
44
38
48
54
NOTE: The term “red counties” denotes counties where the majority of voters vote for Republican presidential
candidates. “Blue counties” refers to those counties where the majority of the voters vote for Democratic
presidential candidates. The terms are generally used to refer to states.
SOURCE: Doherty (2006).
130
Valerie F. Hunt
Where We Are Now: Political Impact of Immigration
and Public Opinion
Immigration Policy Reform in the 109th Congress (2005 – 06)
To some observers, immigration as a major issue seems to have come out
of nowhere and captured the attention of the public, the media, and national
government. Media pundits on all the major news networks regularly feature
programs about “broken borders,” invasions of illegal immigrants, and the threat
of immigrants to job security for native workers. Cities such as Hazleton, Pennsylvania, have taken up immigration in their city council meetings. Hazleton’s mayor
and city council voted to fine landlords for renting to illegal immigrants and to
withhold business permits to employers of undocumented workers. In Arizona, a
group of citizens called the Arizona Minutemen has “volunteered” its services to
the U.S. Border Patrol, its leader claiming that the efforts are necessary because
the federal government has dropped the ball in protecting U.S. borders. Public
protests and demonstrations by immigrant rights activists were joined by a body
of newcomers, the immigrants themselves. Thousands of immigrants, legal and
undocumented, took to the streets of major U.S. cities such as Dallas, Los Angeles,
New York, and Chicago to protest the restrictive immigration-policy reform measures debated in Congress as well as in cities and states across the country.
Republican Party leaders in the House and Senate are divided over supporting enforcement-only over comprehensive efforts to curtail illegal immigration.
However, the current state of affairs in immigration policy is due to a confluence
of economic, political, and institutional factors at work in this highly contentious
policy arena.
The current policy reform efforts are taking place in a very challenging political environment. I will identify and discuss each of the factors shaping these
policy efforts. Next, I will discuss the policy reform alternatives in Congress.
The following factors are at play in the current immigration policy debates
and policy process:
1. Internal divisions in the Republican and Democratic parties
2. Divisions between the House and Senate
3. Immigration’s salience to the president’s policy agenda
4. Increases in the percentage of foreign born in the U.S. and a shift in the
destinations of the foreign born from traditionally high-impact states
(Florida, California, and Texas) to new states (Indiana, Georgia, and North
Carolina)
5. The return of highly negative public sentiment toward immigrants and
public attentiveness to illegal immigrants
Political Implications of U.S. Public Attitudes Toward Immigration 131
In 2005, Congress took up its first major efforts on regulation of illegal immigration since the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act.
Table 5 reports the comparisons between the House and Senate bills. House members reported out a bill (HR 4437) that is more restrictive than the Senate bill. While
both chambers focus on illegal immigration, the House focuses exclusively on efforts to curtail illegal immigration. HR 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism
and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005, deals only with border enforcement.
The bill proposes to build a 700-mile fence along the U.S.–Mexico border. Instead
of a “catch and release” policy, Border Patrol would be required to apprehend and
immediately deport unauthorized migrants. Employers would be required by 2012
Table 5
Comparison of House and Senate Immigration Reform Bills HR 4437 and S 2611
Border enforcement
Employer sanctions
Fines
Pathway to citizenship
Guest-worker program
House
HR 4437
Border Protection, Antiterrorism,
and Illegal Immigration Control
Act of 2005
Senate
S 2611
Comprehensive Immigration
Reform Act of 2006
Passed December 16, 2005
239 Y/182 N
(13 not voting)
Passed May 25, 2006
62 Y/36 N
(2 not voting)
700-mile double-layer fence on
U.S.–Mexico border. Mandatory
detention of all non-Mexican
illegal immigrants. Mandatory
sentencing of smugglers of illegal
immigrants.
370-mile triple-layer fence and
500-mile vehicle barrier. Authorize 14,000 more Border Patrol
agents by 2011.
Starting in 2012, all employers
required to verify Social Security
identification of all employees.
Employment Eligibility.
Verification System
$40,000 maximum fines to
employers of illegal immigrants.
$20,000 maximum fine for each
violation and jail time for repeat
offenders.
Legalization provisions through a
deferred mandatory deportment
status and blue card.
Create a new nonimmigrant
temporary worker category (an
H-2C guest worker visa); H-2Cs
would increase the number of
annual guest-worker admissions
by 200,000.
SOURCE: Data for each bill are compiled from the online access of the Daily Digests of the Congressional
Record.
132
Valerie F. Hunt
to verify Social Security identification for all employees. Fines up to $40,000 would
be imposed on employers of illegal immigrant workers along with prison sentencing. The bill does not include guest worker steps toward legalization.
S 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006, also addresses
border enforcement and employer sanctions. The bill calls for 370 miles of triplelayer fence, with a 500-mile vehicle barrier at the border. The measure would
create the Employment Eligibility Verification System, under which all employers
would be required to verify the status and documentation of all employees. The
measure also addresses what to do with the 11.5 million undocumented migrants
in the U.S. The Senate measure provides multiple “pathways to citizenship” for
undocumented migrants who have resided in the U.S. for different year intervals. Undocumented migrants residing in the U.S. for five years or more would
show verification of continuous employment, pay fines and back taxes, and take
English-language courses to be eligible to apply for citizenship. Undocumented
migrants residing in the U.S. between two and five years would be required to
leave the U.S. and could apply for return upon receipt of a temporary work visa.
As guest workers, they would be eligible to apply for citizenship status. Undocumented migrants with less than two years’ residency would be required to leave
the U.S., with no guarantee of a work visa or eligibility for the citizenship pathway process. The measure also calls for a guest-worker program.
President Bush’s policy preferences for immigration reform are closer to the
Senate measure than to the House measure. House Republicans did not shy away
from being vocal about the policy differences between House leadership and the
president. Some of the open opposition can be traced to concerns the Republican leadership has about the president’s low approval ratings with the public
and the need to minimize possible negative repercussions of those ratings in the
2006 midterm elections. According to surveys conducted by the Pew Research
Center for People and the Press (2006a) from September 6 –10, 2006, 37 percent
of people polled approved of the way the president handled his job, while 53
percent disapproved of the president’s job performance.4 The president usually is
a major positive factor in bolstering rank-and-file voter turnout for congressional
candidates within his party. The president, as head of the party, can provide an
electoral boost to candidates in contested races — if he has popular appeal. The
Republican Party faced a midterm election year in which there was highly negative public sentiment toward Congress, Republican leadership, and presidential
performance. The survey responses discussed in prior sections of this essay suggest that the public is predisposed to punishing or rewarding candidates according to their policy positions on immigration.
The open divisions between House and Senate Republican leadership, and
between House leadership and the president, may have induced the Republicans
to delay sending the two measures to conference committee, where differing bills
Political Implications of U.S. Public Attitudes Toward Immigration 133
from the two chambers are sent for resolution and final vote by the full Congress.
Instead, Republican leadership held a series of public hearings on immigration in
cities throughout the U.S. in the summer of 2006.
Upon Congress members’ return to session in early September 2006, the
House focused on passing a series of bills that were essentially pieces culled from
HR 4437 (Table 6). The House passed HR 4844 (the Federal Election Integrity Act
of 2006), requiring valid photo identification verifying U.S. citizenship for persons
to register to vote in federal elections. A second measure, HR 6061 (the Secure
Fence Act of 2006), authorizes the construction of a 700-mile, double-layer fence.
A third measure, HR 4830 (the Border Tunnel Prevention Act of 2006), prohibits
unauthorized construction of tunnels between the U.S. and its neighbors. These
measures will provide Republican Party candidates with a legislative record of efforts to address public concerns about curtailing illegal immigration.
Immigration and the 2006 Midterm Elections
What are the implications of increased public attentiveness to immigration
for the midterm elections of 2006? Congressional (and presidential) candidates
have seldom developed electoral strategies that included immigration issues. The
notable exception is the 1994 California governor’s race, in which Republican
incumbent Pete Wilson rode the negative public sentiment of California voters
against illegal migrants and made illegal immigration a central theme in his successful bid for reelection. Conventional wisdom is that the political divisiveness
engendered by immigration issues makes it hard to contain public furor over
any particular stance. Indeed, the Republican Party expressed concerns over the
potential political backlash from Hispanic voters. Census data show that the Hispanic population is the fastest-growing voting bloc. Polls of the Hispanic votingage population show that Hispanics tend to lean more toward Republican partiTable 6
U.S. House Bills on Immigration Reform Acted On After Passage of HR 4437
House
HR 6061
Secure Fence Act of 2006
Measure
700-mile double-layer fence on
U.S.–Mexico border.
Vote
September 14, 2006, 283–138
(11 not voting)
HR 4844
Federal Election Integrity Act
of 2006
People registering to vote in federal elections required to show
photo identification.
September 20, 2006, 228–196
(8 not voting)
HR 4830
Border Tunnel Prevention Act
of 2006
Prohibits the unauthorized construction of tunnels between U.S.
and any other country.
September 21, 2006, 422–0
(10 not voting)
SOURCE: Data for each bill are compiled from online access of the Daily Digests of the Congressional
Record.
134
Valerie F. Hunt
sanship and affiliation. Given the Republican Party’s concerted efforts to recruit
Hispanic voters and the trajectory of Hispanic voters figuring more significantly
in future national electoral races (DeSipio 2006), the development of a coherent
Republican national policy platform on immigration will be important.
Public perception of the degree to which immigration has specific public
costs will determine the likelihood of public calls for policy reform. Many public policy and congressional scholars argue that when policy costs are diffuse
and benefits are specific, the public and, thus, voters are less likely to connect
the harms of a policy and call for legislative reform (Arnold 1990; Gimpel and
Edwards 1999; Wilson 1980). Congressional scholars Gimpel and Edwards make
a case for this in their study of immigration policy process in Congress. They
contend that the costs of immigration are diffuse and the benefits are specific to
particular segments within the economic and political realms. Specifically, agricultural and service-industry employers benefit significantly from a steady and
reliable source of immigrant labor.
Immigration’s appeal as an electoral issue has increased during the 2006 midterm election cycle. While a comprehensive analysis of all House and Senate races
in 2006 is beyond the scope of this essay, it is helpful to review an illustrative case
of how candidates have included immigration issues in their campaign strategies.
In border states such as New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, and California, national
and state legislators have had to contend with the public’s concerns about illegal
immigration and have felt the repercussions of the public’s shift in using immigration issues in vote choice. Of the estimated 11.5 million unauthorized migrants in
the U.S., approximately 500,000 live in Arizona, a state that shares a 375-mile border with Mexico. From 2000 to 2005, Arizona experienced a 45 percent increase
in unauthorized migration (U.S. Department of Homeland Security 2006). Arizona
leans Republican in partisanship; the Republican presidential candidate from the
2000 and 2004 presidential elections carried the state.
Conclusion
Congressional scholar John Kingdon (1984) says that a political issue is an
idea whose time has come. This observation rings true for immigration policy
debate in the twenty-first century. Immigration has been on and off the national
policy agenda. Throughout history, Americans have revisited the debate over
what it means to be a nation of immigrants, to be a country that opens its doors
to scientists, laborers, and refugees. However, the degree to which the nation has
become attentive and involved in the policy debate is unlike any other period
since the early 1920s. We now see immigration debated in city councils in tiny
burgs and in municipalities of new destination states such as Iowa, Georgia, and
Political Implications of U.S. Public Attitudes Toward Immigration 135
Indiana. Immigration is an issue whose time has come in almost all sectors of the
American political and social landscape.
The political implication for the short term of this heightened attention is
that immigration has gained a place that is high on the media, governmental, and
policy agendas. The degree to which this heightened attention leads to policy
change remains to be seen.
Notes
At the time of writing this analysis in late 2006, the House and Senate were at a stalemate over
resolution of the two bills. A conference committee to resolve differences on the bills had been
postponed.
2
The data for U.S. legal permanent residents are derived from Table 1 of the 2005 Yearbook of
Immigration Statistics. The category legal permanent resident comprises immigrants who had
already been in the country and have been granted legal residence status (i.e., adjustment of
status) and new arrivals of that given year. See 2005 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Office
of Immigration Statistics, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
3
The 2006 total household population for the U.S. is 288,378,137. See U.S. Bureau of Census
table.
4
The Pew survey asked the following question: “Do you approve or disapprove of the way George
W. Bush is handling his job as president?” The Pew Research Center has asked this same question of the American public in monthly surveys since 2001.
1
References
Arnold, R. Douglas (1990), The Logic of Congressional Action (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press).
Baumgartner, Frank R., and Bryan D. Jones (1993), Agendas and Instability in American Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
Chavez, Leo (2001), Covering Immigration: Popular Images and the Politics of the Nation
(Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press).
Citrin, Jack, Donald P. Green, Christopher Muste, and Cara Wong (1997), “Public Opinion
Toward Immigration Reform: The Role of Economic Motivations,” Journal of Politics 59 (3):
858 – 81.
DeSipio, Louis (2006), “From Naturalized Citizen to Voter: Context of Naturalization and Electoral Participation in Latino Communities,” paper presented at “Immigration Policy After 9/11:
U.S. and European Perspectives,” Center for European Studies, University of Texas at Austin,
March 2­ –3.
136
Valerie F. Hunt
Doherty, Carroll (2006), “Attitudes Toward Immigration in Red and Blue,” Pew Research Center
for the People and the Press, May 9.
Downs, Anthony (1972), “Up and Down with Ecology: The ‘Issue-Attention Cycle,’” The Public
Interest 28 (Summer): 38–50.
Fetzer, Joel S. (2000), Public Attitudes Toward Immigration in the United States, France, and
Germany (New York: Cambridge University Press).
Freeman, Gary (1994), “Can Liberal States Control Unwanted Migration?” The Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 534.
Gimpel, James G., and James R. Edwards Jr. (1999), The Congressional Politics of Immigration
Reform (Boston, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon).
Hollifield, James F. (1992), Immigrants, Markets and States: The Political Economy of Postwar
Europe (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press).
Hunt, Valerie F. (2003), “Is There a Place for Human Rights in U.S. Immigration Policy in the
Wake of 9/11?” Princeton Political Quarterly; Issues in Equality, Morality and Justice (Spring):
11–15.
Iyengar, Shanto, and Donald R. Kinder (1987), News that Matters: Television and American
Opinion (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
Kingdon, John (1984), Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies (Boston, Mass.: Little, Brown).
Mendelberg, Tali (2001), The Race Card: Campaign Strategy, Implicit Messages, and the Norm
of Equality (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press).
Pew Research Center for People and the Press (2006a), “Bush’s September Gains: A Mixed
Picture,” September 22.
——— (2006b), “Democrats Hold Solid Lead: Strong Anti-Incumbent, Anti-Bush Mood,” September 14.
Reimers, David (1992), Still the Golden Door: The Third World Comes to America, 2nd ed. (New
York: Columbia University Press).
Simon, Rita J. (1985), Public Opinion and the Immigrant: Print Media Coverage, 1880 – 1980
(Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books).
Political Implications of U.S. Public Attitudes Toward Immigration 137
Simon, Rita J., and Susan H. Alexander (1993), The Ambivalent Welcome: Print Media, Public
Opinion and Immigration (Westport, Conn.: Praeger).
Simon, Rita J., and James P. Lynch (1999), “A Comparative Assessment of Public Opinion
Toward Immigrants and Immigration Policies,” International Migration Review 33 (September):
455 – 67.
Tarrance Group and Lake Research Partners (2006a), “A National Survey of Voter Attitudes on
Immigration Reform,” Manhattan Institute for Policy Research and National Immigration Forum,
March 26 – 28.
——— (2006b), “A National Survey of Voter Attitudes on Immigration,” Manhattan Institute for
Policy Research and National Immigration Forum, July 9 –13.
Tichenor, Daniel (2002), Dividing Lines: The Politics of Immigration Control in America
(Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press).
U.S. Bureau of the Census (2006), Percent of Foreign Born in U.S.: 15 Largest Cities (table)
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census).
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (2006), “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2005,” Office of Immigration Statistics (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office).
Wilson, James Q. (1980), “The Politics of Regulation,” in The Politics of Regulation (New York:
Basic Books), 357 – 94.